Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

[Robyn]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

And besides which' date=' if we have purely a sort of "I"m better" chest-beating fight between 2 characters (PC and NPC, PC and PC, whichever, really), one which is either entirely non-essential to the plot at hand in the result or otherwise having stakes of interest but not life-or-death, but either way of some importance to character development or at least establishing "hey, who did win?", we don't want or need tactical combat (potentially, I mean) as neither character will be killed or even seriously (at least in terms of suffering on-screen consequences) injured.[/quote']

 

After an entire day of losing out to every minor-league villain that the group stumbles across, one hero is ready to take out his frustration. And he does so, on the weakest NPC he can find.

 

Which brings up another interesting point. Stress relief may not be part of the HERO system, but it certainly can play a pivotal role in a more narrative campaign. Mechanics-wise, your character will not be affected one way or the other by victory in combat against such a weak NPC; story-wise, though, it can be critical. Now: reverse those terms.

 

Reverse them all through this thread. Let's imagine, for a moment, that we're talking about skipping over (abstracting) character development to . . . a die roll.

 

Is this acceptable, provided we do not think any significant developments can take place during an interaction?

[Willow]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

To those of you who think this is an unnecessary idea, please do one of the following:

 

1) Pretend it's a good idea, and join the effort in contributing towards it.

 

Or

 

2) Discontinue your involvement with this thread. You aren't being helpful.

 

Thank you.

 

---

 

The reason I don't find "just narrate the outcome" to be acceptable, is that it simply boils down to GM-fiat, and I'd prefer a more objective solution, such as the one that the default combat system, or even a simple skill roll has.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

...the only practical way to achieve that is to play it out phase by phase.

 

And this is the crux of the matter. You have a black and white approach to this. Either there is absolute GM edict on what happened or the players have to play it out phase by phase which (regardless of the minor nature of the opponents) take up much of the evenings gameplay.

 

What is proposed here is a shorthand system where what the players want is not what the GM wants to give but neither wants to spend the time playing out phase by phase.

 

With an agreed resolution system the GM has a guide to what he should provide to the players based on the game system. And allows the game to progress without undue delay.

 

It might not be your cup of tea, it might not be something that you want to use in your own game but surely you can recognise that some people and some gaming groups might find such a thing useful?

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

To those of you who think this is an unnecessary idea, please do one of the following:

 

1) Pretend it's a good idea, and join the effort in contributing towards it.

 

Or

 

2) Discontinue your involvement with this thread. You aren't being helpful.

 

If an idea is a good one and it is proposed in the rules threads you should have to be prepared to defend it against those who think it is unnecessary.

 

I don't think anyone has yet been derogatory or abusive, simply questioning the need for another mechanic in what is a mechanic heavy game to begin with.

 

It is useful for the basic concepts of an idea to be challenged - if there is proper engagement on both sides it usually results in a much better proposal at the end of the conversation.

 

Doc

[Willow]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

I disagree, there's a poster I think has gotten a little flamey. I'm not going to directly respond to it, because I just want to move on with the discussion at hand.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

I disagree' date=' there's a poster I think has gotten a little flamey. I'm not going to directly respond to it, because I just want to move on with the discussion at hand.[/quote']

 

that's the best idea, its the second flame that makes the war.

[Willow]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

So, moving along.

 

I put a little thought into this, and typed something up. It's still in the rough stages. Right now the biggest source of feedback I'm looking for are: how do the modifiers look? Are any of them unbalanced? What else should go on that table? And what should be on the Fallout table?

 

****

 

Combat By Scene Resolution in the Hero System:

 

Step One:

 

Determine Stakes. There should be two sides involved, and each should be able to state clearly what they hope to get out of the conflict. Some possibilities could be “beat them up,” “get the MacGuffin,” “get away” “drive the attackers away” “look like heroes in front of the media,” etc. Stakes cannot include definitive defeat of the other side- if you want to kill or otherwise permanently take out your enemy, you’ve got to do it the hard way! Note that sometimes defeating your enemy won’t even be important at all to what you really want.

 

If the parties involved can’t be split into two sides, or the players involved can’t agree on a single stake for their side, the conflict is probably too complex to be handled with these rules.

 

The stakes should be agreeable to all sides, and of roughly equal weight.

 

Step Two:

 

Determine Dice Pools:

 

Each side will have a number of dice to roll. This is determined as follows:

 

Participants: 1d6 per participant.

High-Power Participants: If a character is worth 100 character points or more, they are instead worth 1d6 for every 50 character points.

Majority of Character’s Powers are Unusable: -1d6

Character has Particularly Relevant Disadvantage: +1d6

Character has Particularly Advantageous Power: +1d6

Character has Extremely Advantageous Power: +2d6

Superior Starting Position: +1d6, or more

Superior Equipment: +1d6, or more

 

Powers and Skills:

 

Every character involved may make a Luck roll and must make an Unluck roll. Every active Luck or Unluck die adds/subtracts a die from the side’s Die Pool.

 

If half or more (at least two characters) of the characters on a side have Teamwork, their side gets +1d6. If they all do (at least four characters), their side gets +2d6.

 

One character from each side should make an opposed Tactics roll. The winner’s side gets +1d6 for every 2 points they beat the opponent.

 

Step Three:

 

Resolution: Each side rolls their combat pool and counts body. Whichever side has the higher total has won the combat, and achieves their stakes.

 

On a tie, the players have a few options: one is to work out a stalemate or compromise: declare that neither side got their stakes, or each got some part of their stakes. Or for a big unexpected outcome, perhaps *both* sides achieve their stakes- this is great for really big die pools. If compromise or stalemate is impossible, the players may be default to a standard HERO combat.

 

Afterwards, each character should roll on the fallout table to see what resources were expended and injuries were suffered. (Pending)

[arcady]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

More to the point, I wouldn't even include it.

 

However, to give the swordswingers a little spotlight time, I occasionally include a non-essential fight.

I dunno... my players love going after everything that is non essential and ignoring everything that is.

 

Me: "So, the Harbringer of Doom is standing outside the diner with his Tome of Chaos open to Chapter 13 and he's starting to read it off, meanwhile, Mabel pours Jed another up of coffee over in the corner as the death-knights pour through the rift into the city streets and..."

 

Player 1: "Wait, I try to interrupt Mabel! Can I do that?"

Player 2: "Yes, but is that really coffee?"

Player 3: "I order a double latte."

Player 4: "Hey is there any cool art on the walls in here?"

Me: "Uh.. the Harbringer of Doom is..."

Player 2: "Yeah... um, I'm going to offer Mabel a job in my new head quarters. Hey, anyone want to put points in getting us a super computer?"

Me: "Harbringer of Doom anyone...?"

Player 3: "Who...?"

Player 4: "I blast Mabel with my Ray of Truth."

Player 1: "Can we use Create Object to build our Super Computer for free?"

Me: "..."

 

Not exactly that off topic... but they love chasing minor leads.

 

So... resolving something non-essential is in fact essential...

[arcady]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

So, moving along.

 

...

 

Resolution: Each side rolls their combat pool and counts body. Whichever side has the higher total has won the combat, and achieves their stakes.

 

...

 

Afterwards, each character should roll on the fallout table to see what resources were expended and injuries were suffered. (Pending)

 

Seems workable, but the real test is whether or not it would generally achieve results similar to those likely to occur if the battle was played out in full.

 

The biggest motive behind a complex combat system, other than the fun of playing through it, would be to ensure to a player that they do not lose their character would a full and fair process to adjudicate that loss... So the big hurdle to me seems getting the idea past a player who ends up with a negative result. If you can meet that burden, you're set.

[zornwil]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

If the precise details of the resolution are considered critical, then the situation should be played out. Alternatively, the GM might state that, since you called out the toughest goons, the others backed off to give them room to fight. When the result quickly became clear, they took off.

 

At some point, the lack of detailed play-out will mean there are possibilities not explored. If the players wich the full measure of control they would have playing the events out phase by phase, the only practical way to achieve that is to play it out phase by phase.

"Lack of details" is a relative statement. The point here is the satisfaction of the play group is not indulged by extreme tactical detail for a minor point. I think the battle between 2 supers who are destined to get together is a perfect case in point.

[zornwil]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Willow, I'm looking forward to hearing how it works out.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

So, moving along.

 

I put a little thought into this, and typed something up. It's still in the rough stages. Right now the biggest source of feedback I'm looking for are: how do the modifiers look? Are any of them unbalanced? What else should go on that table? And what should be on the Fallout table?

 

It will be interesting to hear the playtest results. My biggest concern would be that determining the goal, modifiers, fallout possibilities, etc. will take as much time as just playing out the scene using the normal rules, in which case I think your objective has not been accomplished. [Assuming I understand your objective correctly - to reduce, hopefully significantly, the time spent resolving minor events.]

 

Combat By Scene Resolution in the Hero System:

 

Is this intended to apply only to combat? I see no reason it could not be applied to other tasks, with a little tweaking. For example, sneaking into the villain organization's secret base and hunting for information. This could be even more useful, as there are often such investogative or other noncombat scenes which involve only one or a few, but not all, of the characters, and those players whose characters are not involved often lose interest in the game if these matters drag on in play.

 

Step One:

 

Determine Stakes. There should be two sides involved, and each should be able to state clearly what they hope to get out of the conflict. Some possibilities could be “beat them up,” “get the MacGuffin,” “get away” “drive the attackers away” “look like heroes in front of the media,” etc. Stakes cannot include definitive defeat of the other side- if you want to kill or otherwise permanently take out your enemy, you’ve got to do it the hard way! Note that sometimes defeating your enemy won’t even be important at all to what you really want.

 

Does this mean that, where one side is entirely made up of NPC's, the GM needs to announce their intentions? As an example, assume that the opponents are staging an attack on the south gate as a feint while a stealthy NPC sneaks into the castle to kidnap the princess. The PC's, however, believe the attack on the south gate is intended to create a breach in the walls such that the attackers can overrun the city (precisely what the opponents want them to believe). The PC's will logically announce their goal is to maintain the security of the south gate and drive off the attackers, with as few casualties as possible. The GM should not then announce the NPC's goal is to drag out the attack to buy time for their commando party to kidnap the princess, then get away with minimal casualties. In my view, the GM should simply set the modifiers to the PC's chances of success in accordance with the fact that their "victory conditions" are similar to those of the opposition, such that they will almost certainly succeed in maintaining the gate and driving off the attackers (but knowing that the attackers will almost certainly be able to drag out the duration using the PC's desire to dig into the fortifications and minimize casualties).

 

 

If the parties involved can’t be split into two sides, or the players involved can’t agree on a single stake for their side, the conflict is probably too complex to be handled with these rules.

 

The stakes should be agreeable to all sides, and of roughly equal weight.

 

Two questions. First, must all the PC's be on the same side, or can this be used to resolve inconsequential PC vs PC conflict (eg. two PC's want to have a duel, as they are in a rivalry, but they don't want to play the whole thing out).

 

Second, why must the stakes be equal for both sides? If this is for inconsequential matters, it would seem common that the stakes for one side may be quite low. In my "Defend the Gate" example, the PC's believe maintaining the gate is quite important, but the NPC's don't consider breaching the gate to be very important at all. Maybe that means the NPC's get penalized (or PC's get bonused) some dice for the fact that the PC's will be giving their all where the NPC's won't.

 

When the stakes are high for both sides, that would seem to be the time to play out the encounter in full.

 

Thinking further, couldn't there be more than two sides? Perhaps there are four separate groups, each seeking to reach the Shrine of the Hidden God first. They all have the same objective. Couldn't they each have their own dice pool, and the best results get their first? Of course, other factors ("if we can't get there first, we at least need to ensure the Followers of Doom don't get there first", for example) could complicate matters to the point that it needs to be played out.

 

Step Two:

 

Determine Dice Pools:

 

Each side will have a number of dice to roll. This is determined as follows:

 

Participants: 1d6 per participant.

High-Power Participants: If a character is worth 100 character points or more, they are instead worth 1d6 for every 50 character points.

 

I would suggest this be customized by campaign - the above will probably work well in lower powered heroic campaigns, but you'll need buckets of dice in high powered Super games. 500 unarmed Normals against half a dozen 350 point Supers would create 500d6 vs 42d6, clearly not representative of the results one would expect after playing the encounter out the long way.

 

Majority of Character’s Powers are Unusable: -1d6

 

This has the odd result that a higher point (eg. 350 point) character whose abilities are useless in this situation adds to the chance of success (6d6 in this case).

 

Character has Particularly Relevant Disadvantage: +1d6

 

Is this a character on my side or on their side? If my side includes a powerful mage who is "Member of the Obsidian Order" and their side includes a higher-ranking member of the Obsidian Order, who will signal that mage to back off, that would seem to reduce my side's chance of success. I would suggest disadvantages might add in some cases, but more commonly would reduce the chance of success, on accasion neutralize any positive benefit otherwise provided by the disadvantaged character, and in extreme cases could even cause the group's chance of success to be lower than it would have been if that character were absent (our Mage will actually work to hinder the PC's chances of success, though he won't switch to the other side).

 

Character has Particularly Advantageous Power: +1d6

Character has Extremely Advantageous Power: +2d6

Superior Starting Position: +1d6, or more

Superior Equipment: +1d6, or more

 

I would change "power" to "ability". In fact, each of these modifiers seems the same - extremely advantageous powers, equipment or starting positions would seem to give rise to similar modifiers.

 

Every character involved may make a Luck roll and must make an Unluck roll. Every active Luck or Unluck die adds/subtracts a die from the side’s Die Pool.

 

I like the idea of luck/unluck having an impact. Whether this is too much, or too little, impact will need to be determined by playtesting. If a lot of issues are resolved this way, Luck/Unluck could become more important than one would want.

 

A possible tweak: restrict Luck to cases where the Lucky character is at a disadvantage, and reduce Unluck to situations where they are at an advantage. Maybe Luck only applies if the team has less dice, and Unluck only where they have more dice. Maybe you set some number of excess dice, by absolute or proportionate number, where these will apply.

 

Alternatively, maybe Luck only gets rolled if you lose, and Unluck only if you win, and impacts the fallout results.

 

If half or more (at least two characters) of the characters on a side have Teamwork' date=' their side gets +1d6. If they all do (at least four characters), their side gets +2d6.[/quote']

 

How valuable this is depends on how many other dice are on each side. I'd like to see Teamwork have a significant impact. Maybe "if half do" gives them +1d6 for every 10d6 they already have (minimum 1d6) and "all do" gives +1d6/5d6 already possessed (minimum 2d6). This would need to be tweaked in playetsting to ensure teamwork is neither too significant nor too insignificant.

 

One character from each side should make an opposed Tactics roll. The winner’s side gets +1d6 for every 2 points they beat the opponent.

 

I would suggest the best Tactician able to influence each side (or maybe not the best if circumstances dictate someone else is calling the shots), but that some number of additional Tacticians may make complementary rolls if they are able to advise, and the primary tactician would take their advice.

 

What if one side lacks the skill entirely?

 

Playtesting, probably, but there should be a limit to how much tactics can add. Even the best tactics aren't likely to let General Brilliance and his three untrained peasants win a seige against a castle with 10,000 trained soldiers holding 8 months' supplies occupying it. Then again, this may already be covered in the huge discrepancy they'll already have in their dice.

 

Step Three:

 

Resolution: Each side rolls their combat pool and counts body. Whichever side has the higher total has won the combat, and achieves their stakes.

 

On a tie, the players have a few options: one is to work out a stalemate or compromise: declare that neither side got their stakes, or each got some part of their stakes. Or for a big unexpected outcome, perhaps *both* sides achieve their stakes- this is great for really big die pools. If compromise or stalemate is impossible, the players may be default to a standard HERO combat.

 

A tie commonly resolves in the defender's favour. Maybe this indicates a temporary stalemate. ["As the sun rises, the invaders' forces retreat from the South Gate and regroup. While you have held the gate, the invaders have suffered no significant losses, and it seems likely they will attack again when the sun sets."]

 

Afterwards' date=' each character should roll on the fallout table to see what resources were expended and injuries were suffered. (Pending)[/quote']

 

The degree of success, and the actual stakes, should logically affect the fallout results. Fallout should not reasonably lead to serious negative results for the overwhelming winners and serious benefits for the losers. Another possibility: can one or both sides choose to husband their resources or, alternatively, expend additional resources? This would convert to a dice pool penalty for conservation, or a bonus for expending, resources (ie a change in the likelihood of success) but an offsetting bonus or penalty (the opposite direction) on the Fallout roll?

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

It seems I'm jumping in a little late here, but for handling large groups of Mooks, here's what I'd do.

 

I'd tend to go for just using Mook stats for the mooks and running the combat normally. Each Mook gets his CV/Damage recorded. Each time a PC hits a Mook, the margin of success determines how close to taking out the Mook the attack comes.* Suspend any optional damage rules in place in the game for the duration, for both sides. (Things like bleeding, hit locations, etc.) For dramatic effect, allow players to make called shots if they want, but assume they succeed if the attack roll succeeds. These are Mooks, after all, it's OK to show a little flair.

 

If the damage roll is below average, the Mook is still standing but the next hit will take it out. Have some of the Mooks flee, or attempt to if they get hit like this, and that thins them out a bit. If the damage roll is average or better, the mook is one shotted, and out of the fight.

 

You don't need to track anything except damage to the PCs this way. You'd want to assign values to the Mook's stats that ensure that the PCs won't take too much damage, but I think it's appropriate for the genres in question for the heroes to emerge with a few dings and dents after the fight.

 

*For some assumed numbers. Let's assume the average PC has a CV of around 8 or so, counting base CV and maneuvers/skill levels available. You'd want to give the Mooks a less than even chance to land a hit on the PCs. So, let's give the Mooks a CV of 5. The Mooks need 14- to hit a PC and the PCs need an 8- to hit the Mooks. Give the Mooks some appropriate weaponry, and you're ready to roll.

[Pattern Ghost]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Let me add: The above assumes that the Mook fight does have some consequence. In my mind, thinking of all the great Mook fights of comics and the screen, the Mook fight exists to serve two purposes:

 

1. To showcase how badass the protagonist(s) is(are).

2. To establish that no matter how poorly-trained, the villain is bad ass enough to have a squad of Mooks.

 

IOW, Mooks boost the Bad-Ass-O-Meter of everyone else in the story.

[Willow]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

(And I realize that this not quite 'one roll' combat, but rather 'fewer rolls.')

 

My biggest concern would be that determining the goal' date=' modifiers, fallout possibilities, etc. will take as much time as just playing out the scene using the normal rules, in which case I think your objective has not been accomplished. [Assuming I understand your objective correctly - to reduce, hopefully significantly, the time spent resolving minor events.']

 

Good concern, but my experience with systems like this is that they can be extremely fast.

 

Is this intended to apply only to combat? I see no reason it could not be applied to other tasks, with a little tweaking.

 

I don't see why not either. Alternate forms of conflict would just require different modifiers.

 

Does this mean that, where one side is entirely made up of NPC's, the GM needs to announce their intentions?

 

Yup. In your example, I imagine the stakes would be something like:

 

GM: "Ok, if I win, these guys keep you busy long enough for the real villain to kidnap the princess."

PCs: "Whoa! Ok, if we win, we roust these guys quickly, and are able to get the drop on the villain."

 

Two questions. First, must all the PC's be on the same side, or can this be used to resolve inconsequential PC vs PC conflict (eg. two PC's want to have a duel, as they are in a rivalry, but they don't want to play the whole thing out).

 

Nope. Nothing in the rules that says they have to be on the same side.

 

Second, why must the stakes be equal for both sides?

 

This is a general principle in my experience with stake-setting games. What I'm particularly trying to avoid here is 'status quo stakes'- i.e.

 

GM: Ok, If my guys wins, this thing happens.

Player: Ok, if we win, no it doesn't.

 

I find that boring. But then, your methods may vary.

 

I would suggest this be customized by campaign - the above will probably work well in lower powered heroic campaigns, but you'll need buckets of dice in high powered Super games.

 

You're right- I wrote this with ~150 Heroic characters in mind, for which 3 or so 25-50 pt characters is a close fight. Depending on what they put their points into 300+ characters can see some very increasing returns.

 

Character has Particularly Relevant Disadvantage: +1d6

 

Whoops. That was a typo. Should be -1d6.

 

Another possibility: can one or both sides choose to husband their resources or, alternatively, expend additional resources?

 

I very much like that idea.

[TaxiMan]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Back to the OP: Sure! You model every possible result with PCs making decisions at every phase in a combat scenario. Then you enter all those possibilities and potential outcomes into a computer that runs a Monte Carlo simulation to determine the odds of each of the top 20 outcomes (for example).

 

Then you roll - once - a 100-sided die and enter that roll into the program. It prints out the outcome that matches your roll!

 

Ex:

 

Capt. Awesome with his invulnerable Flaming Shield is on a rooftop at 2 a.m. when he notices The Cackling Fiend use his supersonic laugh to blow in the gates to the armory. Dr Darkness, tipped off by his informants, has been waiting under a nearby manhole and slides an extended eyestalk through a slimy hole when he hears the gates fall.

 

Will the Cackling Fiend fail his PER roll to notice the heroes, or will they surprise the mutant chicken? If you have surprise, will Dr Darkness pour up through the manhole cover and vomit his Putrescent Cloud to confuse the evil bird? If that happens, will Capt. Awesome ride his Awesome Pocket Missile down upon the scene and use his Belly Buster move through? Well, you get the idea. Enter each possible action for every possible branching result.

 

Anyway, once you enter every single possibility

into the program...

 

you roll your die...

 

you get "67" and...

 

"The Cackling Fiend is defeated but rescued by his sidekick, Mont Claire in their armored airship that hops in short bursts down the street using the Fry Drive. Four goons are KOed and left in the hardened stickum produced from their exploded Glop Guns, two inside the vault and two on the side of the origami octopus. Capt. Awesome is bleeding profusely from his left ear, but is more concerned about the loss of his Energetic Toe Ring. The rubble of the orphanage wall covers most of the experimental tank, and Dr Darkness struggles and eventually succeeds in demagnetizing his head, which was stuck against the tank's disintegration ray."

 

Simple stats follow, identifying how much BODY and STUN are lost from each hero, and list consumable items lost.

 

No biggie. We can probably develop that program quickly but I think the user won't be happy entering all the input required for each combat.

[Astragaal]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Tactics or Stratedgy used in a skill verus skill, +s and -s assigned for modifiers based on numbers circumstance etc.

 

Easy as pie, thats how Id do it, of course any decent/plot worthy fight would be played out regardless under the normal combat rule as I deemed fitting, but the spear chuckers need not be given anymore respect than the skill v skill.

 

A PC IMO should never die in the skill v skill, if they obviously do die run a combat within the bounds of the engagement then either kill them, or if they do enough to make you happy they live through the snafu let them live.

Or an easy way on a skill v skill, with all participating members at -1 body/differance in the skills. Or give the enemy the differance split betwen OCV/DCV as seems fitting. You could also compromise do the skill v skill but make players finish the fight, with the oppenent suffering the minuses. NPC auto killed on a differance of 10 or higher (GMs discretion, ie yes for goblins, no for body 80 dragons), PC never auto die, they could all start the fight dad if they fail by 30, but then 30s a pretty hefty fail.

[Robyn]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

A PC IMO should never die in the skill v skill' date='[/quote']

 

But let them earn serious bonuses if they are willing to die trying to achieve their objectives.

 

This might be a good explanation for why heroes often survive their first encounters with the villains (who easily could be applying their full force to crush the hapless heroes) - the villains don't know how tough the heroes are until after at least the first battle.

[Astragaal]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Thats a fair point, but I'll point out even though I say IMO dont kill them I do say let them suffer potentially large negatives following the same mechanics as they attempt to gain positives. In the case of a huge failure, even where PC death is almost guarenteed, I just think that its better to extend the playing of the PCs death out.

 

So the rule I suggest doesnt mean the PCs are not going to die in the first encounter, it just means when they do it will be in a proper extended fight not a simple Skill V Skill.

 

But let them earn serious bonuses if they are willing to die trying to achieve their objectives.

 

This might be a good explanation for why heroes often survive their first encounters with the villains (who easily could be applying their full force to crush the hapless heroes) - the villains don't know how tough the heroes are until after at least the first battle.

[Robyn]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

In the case of a huge failure, even where PC death is almost guarenteed, I just think that its better to extend the playing of the PCs death out.

 

So the rule I suggest doesnt mean the PCs are not going to die in the first encounter, it just means when they do it will be in a proper extended fight not a simple Skill V Skill.

 

Where the death of all the PC's is nearly guaranteed, I would (as a player) prefer to make a noble sacrifice in a single die roll instead of play it out and watch everyone die.

[Astragaal]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

I guess I may have a broader definition of nearly dead than you.

 

Where the death of all the PC's is nearly guaranteed' date=' I would (as a player) prefer to make a noble sacrifice in a single die roll instead of play it out and watch everyone die.[/quote']

[Robyn]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

I guess I may have a broader definition of nearly dead than you.

 

I thought we were talking about almost "guaranteed PC death", not nearly "dead"

[Astragaal]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

I guess anything where Im am not minus my own body, is nearly dead , including being on full body . But essentially I guess where theres life theres hope would be as good an expression of what I mean. Also I may have played long enough to have a certain faith on the sheer randomness of existance, or Ive seen things I wouldnt believe. The dice are fickle things, so if death is further away in play the a resolution or character choice, Id prefer to fight, if in play the next roll is fatal resolve it.

And to harp back to my original post I do say or at least imply that Id use this for spear chuckers, which the PCs arent generally speaking. Proper NPCs, would get there fight in system.

 

I thought we were talking about almost "guaranteed PC death"' date=' not [u']nearly[/u] "dead"